THE Correctional Department, caught on the hop by emerging information that slain warder Maurice Whittingham had a spotty history of service in the police force and the army, is to review its scanning process for applicants.

According to Major Richard Reese, the commissioner of corrections, his department started checking on Whittingham’s background after his April 16 funeral.

“I went to the funeral and saw these different uniforms inside the programme. So we did some checks as well and the same information I guess you have, we have,” Major Reese told the Sunday Observer.

Information about Whittingham’s employment history started trickling out a few days after he and three prisoners were shot dead in a failed escape bid by inmates at the Tower Street Adult Correctional Centre on March 31. Police said the shooting started while warders were processing inmates and their visitors.

A man in the crowd pulled a gun and warders responded with gunfire. Three other warders, an aftercare officer, three inmates and a visitor were injured in the firefight that traumatised visitors and warders.

The following day, police suggested that the man who had triggered the incident was a prisoner and that the gun he used was smuggled into the facility by a visitor.

Investigations into how the gun got into the hands of a prisoner are not yet complete, but police told the Sunday Observer a few weeks ago that Whittingham was no longer a suspect.

“Our investigations are not pointing in his direction,” said a deputy superintendent who opted not to be named.

It appeared, however, that it was Whittingham’s past that caused investigators to suspect that he may have had a hand in getting the gun inside the prison.

According to a senior detective, who spoke on condition of anonymity, Whittingham had joined the constabulary but was dismissed because of an incident involving a gun.

He did not elaborate, and all the Sunday Observer could get from other police officials, who also did not want to be identified, was that Whittingham enlisted in the constabulary in April 1997 and was dismissed in early 1999. The reason given was that he was “not likely to become an efficient constable”.

Whittingham’s dismissal fell inside the two-year probationary period for all police recruits. During that time, they are assessed and tested every three months by a sub-officer in charge of probations who eventually makes a final recommendation on the recruits’ suitability for the job.

A year after his exit from the police force, Whittingham joined the Jamaica Defence Force’s National Reserve.

His stay there, however, was short-lived as he was discharged that same year. The Sunday Observer was unable to get specific details about the length of his service and why he was discharged. The only information available was that his service was “no longer required”.

“People can be discharged for a number of reasons,” a source in the JDF, who did not wish to be named, explained on Friday. “One of those reasons can be stating false information on an application.” However, the source added that a lack of physical fitness could also disqualify an applicant.

Last week, Major Reese’s office confirmed that Whittingham joined the correctional services in 2003. It was not clear whether he got in before or after Major Reese took up the job as commissioner in mid-2003. However, the department, it appeared, was in the dark about Whittingham’s employment history.

“That information. actually came to our attention after the fact,” Reese told the Sunday Observer on Thursday.

Asked how the correctional services intended to respond, given the information they now had on Whittingham, Reese said: “It would cause us to look at our vetting policy.”

Reese was unable to comment further because he was in a meeting, and his promise to give a more detailed response the following day fell through.

Although Reese’s office explained that comprehensive background checks are done on warder applicants, a former JDF officer suggested on Friday that the Whittingham case could mean that the correctional services was not being rigorous enough in its investigations.

“If the JDF kicks anyone out, that information can be made available to the correctional services, although it is not sent there automatically,” the ex-soldier said.

Up to yesterday, the Sunday Observer did not get a reply from the security authorities as to whether the employment histories of other warders were now being reviewed.

The vetting process

THE police, army and correctional service all say they conduct extensive background checks on applicants up to the point of the Criminal Records Office.

. In the case of the army, each applicant must be recommended by someone and that person is also investigated.

. At the correctional service, applicants are asked to submit documents, including school certificates, which are verified by the department.

. The first stage of the investigation of a police recruit is called a “discreet inquiry”. It involves investigators going into the applicant’s community and building a profile of the applicant by talking to people there.

The persons who recommend the applicant are also interviewed, after which the applicant is called to the police station that serves his/her community and his/her fingerprints taken.

The prints are then sent to the Criminal Records Office where they are checked. If the applicant has a criminal record, his/her application is rejected.

If the applicant has no record, he/she begins the mandatory two-year probation which involves training, monitoring and testing by a sub-officer, normally a corporal with vast experience in the police force and who is specially trained for this job.

The sub-officer is required to submit quarterly reports on the recruit to the divisional headquarters from where the reports are sent to the training branch at police headquarters.

At the end of the probationary period, the sub-officer makes a recommendation as to the suitability of the recruit for the job. The recommendation is sent to the superintendent in charge of the station to which the recruit is assigned.

The superintendent will then send the recommendation to police headquarters for final approval. If, at any time during the probationary period, the recruit is found guilty of a transgression, he/she is dismissed.